Exposing the underbelly of Armstrongism in all of its wacky glory! Nothing you read here is made up. Every crazy, weird and wacky quote is straight from the pens of Armstrongite leaders or members who think they possess some insight into God and the Bible. What you read here is the up to date face of Herbert W Armstrong's legacy. It's the gritty and dirty behind the scenes look at Armstrongism as you have never seen it before!

The UCG-COGWA split didn't happen because of a few cows in Africa. The cows incident happened because of the split and disputings over whether people who went with COGWA who had been gifted cows by LifeNets still owned them once they'd left UCG. That didn't blow up until months later. Regardless, it was more COG people displaying their fubar interpretation of a fine "christian" example, as usual.

No, Lifenets is not a sleazy operation in the least. Those cows BELONG to Lifenets. There is such a thing as property rights in the world.

In the heifer program, the first born cow is donated to the community, NON- COG people. This produces goodwill and a spirit of community service.

For the COGWA people to think that they could abscond with the cows simply because they had access to them was a ridiculous idea. The cows were not owned by the UCG. Lifenets is a completely separate 501c-3 and has donors that are not even necessarily associated with the UCG.

The UCG has a different charity associated with it called "Good Works". The cows in question WERE NOT connected with "Good Works" in any way shape or form.

As a long time contributor to LifeNets , I am glad that the rights and property of the cows was preserved by Lifenets. Lifenets has a corporate governing board, and Vic Kubik , although on the board is not even the chairman. That title is worn by Tom Peine.

When you leave an organization, you leave, and in exchange for that you do lose certain rights and domain. You dont get to have a rummage party looking to take whatever the heck you want like some kind of inner city riot. Lifenets property is Lifenets property, and the COGWA people in Africa had no business taking those cows, even though they had immediate access to them.

Legally speaking, even the outside authorities have backed Lifenets, and these are neutral third parties.

Anonymous, are you "so sleazy" that if your neighbor came over to your house and took off with your car that you wouldn't call the cops? Where is your charity anonymous?

Did Lifenets actually donate the cows, or just lease the cows? Or allow them to just use their cows without really donating them to the community?

Just Because you said that Lifenets donated the cows to the community, but later said that the cows were still preserved by Lifenets. Did lifenets actually donate the cows, or just allow the community to use them?

It doesn't matter how you come down on the issue of the rightful owner of the cows, Vic Kubik is still not living up to the professed doctrines of the church he helps to lead.

1) It could be the case that the defectors were deliberately misconstruing the situation to abscond with the cows. In which case, shame on the COGWA members. EVERY SINGLE UCG person (including Joe) will ALWAYS say this was the case, even though they're all just repeating what Vic Kubik said (he's unbiased, I am sure), and they themselves have no firsthand information about any of it. In this case, Vic Kubik was taking his "brethren" to court rather than suffering wrong as Paul said to do in 1 Corinthians 6:7. Hey, don't believe me, believe your bible. By watching COG leadership's behavior, you would think this was not in there, but it is. Really. It is. Look it up.

On the one hand, UCG SAYS that they believe there are other members of the "body of christ" (a.k.a. "brethren") in other organizations. On the other hand, when push comes to shove, they DO INDEED take church members to court, and defend themselves by saying anyone who isn't a member of UCG does not count as their "brethren." EITHER they're contradicting themselves regarding 1 Corinthians 6:7, OR ELSE they are judging other people regarding their standing in the "body of christ" (a.k.a. on matters of salvation) which is contrary to a host of scriptures, not the least being Matthew 7:1-5. Either way, their behavior contradicts their professed doctrines. I leave it up to you to pick which point of doctrine their example proves they don't really believe when the chips are down.

In which case, shame on Vic Kubik.

2) It could be the case that ownership of said cows was indeed conferred by the fine print and the COGWA members were doing what anyone would have done.

In which case, shame on Vic Kubik.

Either way, it was more COG people (on one or both sides) displaying their completely FUBAR interpretations of a fine "christian" example, AS USUAL. Either way, Vic Kubik and all the other leaders of UCG were displaying their true colors in this incident, and letting the true nature of their "light" to "shine forth" upon us all.

Fewer booklets, more cows. It'd be the first truly Christian thing the leaders of either group did in that whole ridiculous debaucle. It's called compassion and grace, people. But I know they wouldn't know anything about those.

LIFENETS is NOT a UCG organization. It has supporters and a board that are SEPARATE from the UCG.

UCG has its own charitable works organization called "Good Works". The cows are not associated with Good Works , but rather a NON UCG organization called Lifenets.

The cows came from, and were under control of LIFENETS. Leaving the UCG does not mean you get to take Lifenets property.

Let me illustrate it in a different way. Lets say that the Salvation Army has a shelter in Mexico City. It is being used by their members. Then one day, about half the Salvation Army people decide to become Mormon. Do those Mormons now have the right to take the Salvation Army's shelter for their own use? Of course not.

The chairman for Lifenets is Tom Peine. Vic Kubik is a board member. Vic Kubik is not the dictator of LIfenets, although he certainly does play an important public role for it.

Hope this clarifies things. I speak as one who has donated towards those cows, and it is a topic that is near and dear to me occupationally as well.

I disagree, Joe.Perhaps they technically are not, but for practical purposes, they are.

This situation is not unique. There are other "charitable" organizations set up by other cults.Those cults, like UCG/LifeNets has, have incestual relationships between the cult/"charity" that are very revealing.

Here are some facts about these cult/"charity" relationships-

* The members of the cults are encouraged to donate to the "charity" hawked by the cult.

* Top people involved with both the cult and "charity" overlap (i.e., Vic K and others in the case of UCG/LifeNets)

* The cult's members go to lengths to tell others that the cult and the "charity" are unrelated.(As Joe Moeller has done here, repeatedly.)

* The cult's members go to lengths to tell those outside the cult that the "charity" is wonderful and worth contributing to. (As Joe Moeller has done here, repeatedly.)

* The cult's members and causes are often the VERY recipients of the cult's charity's "charitable efforts" (As the incestual relationship between the UCG cult, and Lifenets' "gift"-giving shows)

And let's not forget that the charity is staffed entirely by people who are also members of the cult. In this case, the most visible example being Tom Peine, a member of Kubik's UCG congregation in Indiana for the last 15 years. Bringing up UCG's "Good Works" program is an irrelevant smokescreen.

I have no particular problem with LifeNets per se, as it was originally conceived. I think that Kubik founded LifeNets for laudable reasons: he's Ukranian, and he wanted to help his fellow countrymen who are not so well off in the Ukraine. Also, Kubik is very talented at raising funds for charitable purposes, schmoozing the power brokers, and organizing teams of people to get things done. That being said, there shouldn't be any reason to lie or play games when it comes to LifeNets. But let's face it, Tom Peine is just a figurehead. He's just another helper. He's a retired engineer. He doesn't have any of the skills that Kubik has. All Peine is going to be able to do is be a caretaker, and take care of businessy, officey kind of stuff. The installation of the fictional "president" Peine actually makes me wonder if LifeNets is not now being used for some monkeybusiness, such as the way Ron Weinland used his church's nonprofit status as an illegal tax shelter. Peine's pretend title makes it obvious that some game is being played, whether that be a political game or a financial one. Make no mistake, LifeNets is Kubik's baby, and ultimately he's the one with absolute and total control over it.

Legally, LifeNets and UCG are totally separate, and the leadership of UCG (excluding Kubik, of course) have no role in LifeNets. But Kubik operates in an exclusively UCG sphere (as do most members of ACOGs). So LifeNets will always be staffed exclusively by UCG people, it will benefit designated people in the Ukraine, in Malawi, etc. who may or may not have any religious affiliation, and it will help UCG members in less prosperous countries. But let's understand, it will NEVER EVER benefit anyone connected with any other ACOG, and it will NEVER EVER be staffed by anyone who attends any other ACOG (especially not COGWA!!!) Regardless of who the cows legally belonged to, the divorce between UCG and COGWA was so bitter that it's pretty plausible to me that for Kubik, money might be no object in making sure that NOBODY who had benefited from LifeNets as a UCG member would be able to waltz on over to COGWA with that benefit REGARDLESS of the terms with which it was originally given. For Kubik, on a purely emotional level, it would just be no way and no how, not in his universe is any COGWA member ever going to be given any quarter by LifeNets, retroactively! The cows incident is evidence of how the UCG-COGWA split extended right down through LifeNets to it's past-tense beneficiaries, proving just how incestuous UCG and LifeNets are, and how separate they are NOT. Technically, LifeNets might be "separate" from UCG, but only in the same way that Herbert and Dorothy were "separate".